Michael Linton originated the term "local exchange trading system" (LETS) in 1983 and for a time ran the Comox Valley LETSystems in Courtenay, British Columbia.[22] LETS networks use interest-free local credit so direct swaps do not need to be made. For instance, a member may earn credit by doing childcare for one person and spend it later on carpentry with another person in the same network. In LETS, unlike other local currencies, no scrip is issued, but rather transactions are recorded in a central location open to all members. As credit is issued by the network members, for the benefit of the members themselves, LETS are considered mutual credit systems.
Bartering may sound like a style of commerce more fitting to a backwater marketplace than a modern capitalist environment. According to the International Reciprocal Trade Association—an organization created to promote “just and equitable standards” in modern bartering—the U.S. barter market is a staggering $12 billion annually. In other words, $12 billion worth of goods and services are traded every year without any currency changing hands. Scott Whitmer, founder of trade exchange company Florida Barter, says that while 2011 saw positive signs of an economic recovery, many small and medium-size companies are still struggling. “Bartering has continued to help many [of these] companies grow and conserve cash,” he says. Though Florida Barter enjoyed a record 2011—a 12 percent increase in total trade volume; more than $17 million worth of trades among the 1,600 clients—Whitmer says bartering as a business practice is still in its infancy, “on the cusp of exploding.” 

This sort of scenario was so undesirable that societies must have created money to facilitate trade, argues Smith. Aristotle had similar ideas, and they’re by now a fixture in just about every introductory economics textbook. “In simple, early economies, people engaged in barter,” reads one. (“The American Indian with a pony to dispose of had to wait until he met another Indian who wanted a pony and at the same time was able and willing to give for it a blanket or other commodity that he himself desired,” read an earlier one.)
1.Jump up ^ O'Sullivan, Arthur; Steven M. Sheffrin (2003). Economics: Principles in Action. Pearson Prentice Hall. p. 243. ISBN 0-13-063085-3. 2.^ Jump up to: a b Graeber, David (2011). Debt: the first 5,000 years. New York: Melville House. pp. 21–41. 3.Jump up ^ Humphrey, Caroline (1985). "Barter and Economic Disintegration". Man 20 (1): 49. 4.^ Jump up to: a b Humphrey, Caroline (1985). "Barter and Economic Disintegration". Man 20 (1): 48. 5.Jump up ^ Humphrey, Carolyn and Stephen Hugh-Jones (ed.). Barter, Exchange and Value: An Anthropological Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 3. 6.Jump up ^ Graeber, David (2001). Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of our Dreams. New York: Palgrave. p. 154. 7.Jump up ^ Graeber, David (2011). Debt: the first 5,000 years. New York: Melville House. pp. 40–41. 8.Jump up ^ Graeber, David (2001). Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The false coin of our own dreams. New York: Palgrave. pp. 153–4. 9.Jump up ^ Graeber, David (2011). Debt: The First 5,000 Years. Brooklyn, NY: Melville House. pp. 94–102. 10.Jump up ^ Robert E. Wright and Vincenzo Quadrini. Money and Banking.Chapter 3, Section 1: Of Love, Money, and Transactional Efficiency Accessed June 29, 2012 11.Jump up ^ Humphrey, Caroline (1985). "Barter and Economic Disintegration". Man 20 (1): 66–7. 12.Jump up ^ Plattner, Stuart (1989). Plattner, Stuart, ed. Economic Anthropology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. p. 179. 13.Jump up ^ M. Bloch, J. Parry (1989). Money and the Morality of Exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 10. 14.Jump up ^ Humphrey, Caroline (1985). "Barter and Economic Disintegration". Man 20 (1): 52. 15.Jump up ^ Polanyi, Karl (1957). Polanyi, Karl et al, ed. Trade and Market in Early Empires. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press. p. 14. 16.Jump up ^ Harrison, John (1969). Quest for the New Moral World: Robert Owen and the Owenites in Britain and America. New York: Charles Scibners Sons. p. 72. 17.Jump up ^ Harrison, John (1969). Quest for the New Moral World: Robert Owen and the Owenites in Britain and America. New York: Charles Scibners Sons. p. 73. 18.Jump up ^ Harrison, John (1969). Quest for the New Moral World: Robert Owen and the Owenites in Britain and America. New York: Charles Scibners Sons. pp. 202–4. 19.Jump up ^ Tadayuki Tsushima, Understanding “Labor Certificates” on the Basis of the Theory of Value, 1956 20.Jump up ^ Homenatge A Catalunya II (Motion Picture). Spain, Catalonia: IN3, Universita Oberta de Catalunya, Creative Commons Licence. 2010. Retrieved January–2011. "A documentary, a research, a story of stories about the construction of a sustainable, solidarity economics and decentralized weaving nets that overcome the individualization and the hierarchical division of the work, 2011." 21.Jump up ^ Barcelona's barter markets (from faircompanies.com. Accessed 2009-06-29.) 22.Jump up ^ "What is LETS?". AshevilleLETS. Retrieved December 9, 2008. 23.Jump up ^ TIMES, nov. 2009 24.Jump up ^ David M. Gross, ed. (2008). We Won’t Pay: A Tax Resistance Reader. pp. 437–440. 25.Jump up ^ Tax Topics - Topic 420 Bartering Income. United States Internal Revenue Service
Bartering is based on a simple concept: Two individuals negotiate to determine the relative value of their goods and services and offer them to one another in an even exchange. It is the oldest form of commerce, dating back to at time before hard currency even existed. (Learn more about how bartering evolved, read The History of Money: From Barter To Banknotes.)

The Buy-day (Wheat) Ecological Life Associate summarizes a vision of life in Gezi as follows: "In our world, which is being poisoned and destroyed by consumer culture, we need sustainable and self-operating models of lifestyles, including a barter economy, ecological food production, arts and craftsmanship based on needs, renewable and effective energy use, agricultural models backed by society, permaculture, slow cities, transitional towns, eco-villages, district gardens and secondhand and recycling systems.
Anthropologists have argued, in contrast, "that when something resembling barter does occur in stateless societies it is almost always between strangers."[6] Barter occurred between strangers, not fellow villagers, and hence cannot be used to naturalistically explain the origin of money without the state. Since most people engaged in trade knew each other, exchange was fostered through the extension of credit.[7][8] Marcel Mauss, author of 'The Gift', argued that the first economic contracts were to not act in one's economic self-interest, and that before money, exchange was fostered through the processes of reciprocity and redistribution, not barter.[9] Everyday exchange relations in such societies are characterized by generalized reciprocity, or a non-calculative familial "communism" where each takes according to their needs, and gives as they have.[10]
No, said Mises, for if taken back far enough, there comes a point at which money first emerges as a medium of exchange out of a pure barter economy Prior to this, it is valued only for its non-monetary uses as a commodity The demand for money is therefore pushed back to the last day of barter, where goods are traded only in direct exchange, and where the temporal element of the regression theorem ends It is in this way that all charges of circularity are obviated.
Other anthropologists have questioned whether barter is typically between "total" strangers, a form of barter known as "silent trade". Silent trade, also called silent barter, dumb barter ("dumb" here used in its old meaning of "mute"), or depot trade, is a method by which traders who cannot speak each other's language can trade without talking. However, Benjamin Orlove has shown that while barter occurs through "silent trade" (between strangers), it also occurs in commercial markets as well. "Because barter is a difficult way of conducting trade, it will occur only where there are strong institutional constraints on the use of money or where the barter symbolically denotes a special social relationship and is used in well-defined conditions. To sum up, multipurpose money in markets is like lubrication for machines - necessary for the most efficient function, but not necessary for the existence of the market itself."[12]
Modern barter and trade has evolved considerably to become an effective method of increasing sales, conserving cash, moving inventory, and making use of excess production capacity for businesses around the world. Businesses in a barter earn trade credits (instead of cash) that are deposited into their account. They then have the ability to purchase goods and services from other members utilizing their trade credits – they are not obligated to purchase from those whom they sold to, and vice versa. The exchange plays an important role because they provide the record-keeping, brokering expertise and monthly statements to each member. Commercial exchanges make money by charging a commission on each transaction either all on the buy side, all on the sell side, or a combination of both. Transaction fees typically run between 8 and 15%.
Anthropologists have argued, in contrast, "that when something resembling barter does occur in stateless societies it is almost always between strangers."[6] Barter occurred between strangers, not fellow villagers, and hence cannot be used to naturalistically explain the origin of money without the state. Since most people engaged in trade knew each other, exchange was fostered through the extension of credit.[7][8] Marcel Mauss, author of 'The Gift', argued that the first economic contracts were to not act in one's economic self-interest, and that before money, exchange was fostered through the processes of reciprocity and redistribution, not barter.[9] Everyday exchange relations in such societies are characterized by generalized reciprocity, or a non-calculative familial "communism" where each takes according to their needs, and gives as they have.[10]
No academics I talked to were aware of any evidence that barter was actually the precursor to money, despite the story’s prevalence in economics textbooks and the public’s consciousness. Some argue that no one ever believed barter was real to begin with—the idea was a crude model used to simplify the context of modern economic systems, not a real theory about past ones. 

The content on MoneyCrashers.com is for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as professional financial advice. Should you need such advice, consult a licensed financial or tax advisor. References to products, offers, and rates from third party sites often change. While we do our best to keep these updated, numbers stated on this site may differ from actual numbers. We may have financial relationships with some of the companies mentioned on this website. Among other things, we may receive free products, services, and/or monetary compensation in exchange for featured placement of sponsored products or services. We strive to write accurate and genuine reviews and articles, and all views and opinions expressed are solely those of the authors.
Advertiser Disclosure: The credit card offers that appear on this site are from credit card companies from which MoneyCrashers.com receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site, including, for example, the order in which they appear on category pages. MoneyCrashers.com does not include all credit card companies or all available credit card offers, although best efforts are made to include a comprehensive list of offers regardless of compensation. Advertiser partners include American Express, U.S. Bank, and Barclaycard, among others.
Anthropologists have argued, in contrast, "that when something resembling barter does occur in stateless societies it is almost always between strangers, people who would otherwise be enemies."[6] Barter occurred between strangers, not fellow villagers, and hence cannot be used to naturalisticly explain the origin of money without the state. Since most people engaged in trade knew each other, exchange was fostered through the extension of credit.[4][7] Marcel Mauss, author of 'The Gift', argued that the first economic contracts were to not act in one's economic self-interest, and that before money, exchange was fostered through the processes of reciprocity and redistribution, not barter.[8] Everyday exchange relations in such societies are characterized by generalized reciprocity, or a non-calculative familial "communism" where each takes according to their needs, and gives as they have.[9]
×